G.D.A. vs KUSUM LATA

THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 16.12.1995 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 72/1994.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant applied for a ground floor house in LIG category in Govindpuram Housing Scheme in double storey building. THE cost was indicated as Rs. 1,10,000/- of the ground floor and of the 1st floor as Rs. 1,00,000/-. THE amount was to be paid in four instalments. Ghaziabad Development Authority has constructed three storey instead of double storey. The complainant, therefore, applied for refund of the entire amount deposited alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum. He also prayed for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- as cost and other expenses. The opposite party contested the case and alleged that as the Vice-Chairman had a right to amend the scheme and if the complainant wants to get the refund of the amount, he can get the same according to the terms of brochure. It also alleged that the delay in construction was on account of stay granted by the Hon''ble High Court.

The learned District Forum, after considering the case of the parties, came to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on behalf of Ghaziabad Development Authority and allowed refund of the amount alongwith interest at the rate of 14% per annum from 1.1.1992 till the date of payment as well as compensation of Rs. 2,500/- and cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum, Ghaziabad Development Authority has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the evidence on record.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has argued that the Vice-Chairman has authority for changing the construction from two-storey to three-storey and no grievance can be made against it. This approach cannot be justified. When a scheme was advertised for construction of two-storey building, the complainant applied for a ground floor house. However, in the multiple storey building if the complainant had been allotted ground floor, then he would not have allowed to say that the said building has been converted to three-storey building. There is no evidence on record to show as to on which floor the complainant was allotted a house. This fact has not been indicated by the Ghaziabad Development Authority in its written statement. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to refund of the amount deposited by him alongwith interest because after he is allotted a house on the 1st or 2nd floor, then he will be put to extra physical burden. Therefore, the complainant was perfectly justified in refusing the allotment and taking possession of the house in the three-storey building. The order of the learned District Forum on this point is perfectly correct and requires no interference. Thus we come to the conclusion that the complainant was entitled to refund of the amount as there was deficiency on behalf of the Ghaziabad Development Authority. Thus the order of the learned District Forum deserves to be confirmed. Order The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. There will be no order as to the cost. Let compliance of this order be made within a period of two months from the date of this order. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed.